Sam Harris.org Reader Forumhttps://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8915/
Sam Harris.org Reader ForumenCopyright 20152015-03-02T00:12:36+00:00Harris vs. Very Bad Wizards (Part II)https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8915/viewthread/17974/
https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8915/viewthread/17974/#When:00:12:36Z<p>I need to have a miniature vent session here:</p>
<p><br />
Listening to Harris’s second meeting on the Very Bad Wizards podcast is a slow way to induce insanity. At times, Dr. Pizarro and (especially) Dr. Sommers sound like sophomore year undergraduate philosophy majors trying to understand and counter Harris’s positions.</p>
<p><br />
The intellectual level of the philosophical discussion sounds as if Harris is instead speaking with Joe Rogan and Co. </p>
<p><br />
This may be an audio version of ipecac. </p>
<p><br />
What a waste.</p>2015-03-02T00:12:36+00:00I still have a head…https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8915/viewthread/17926/
https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8915/viewthread/17926/#When:23:14:43Z<p>This is about ‘Waking Up’ generally, and conciousness and the ‘self’ more specifically, so I thought it may better suit the Philosophy thread.</p>
<p><br />
My problem is I still don’t understand what it is to not see the back of your head, that is to say, I don’t know what it is to lose the concept of the ‘self’, however this is achieved. I thought for a second I got it, that the text had somehow penetrated my understanding, and that the words had melted away revealing what it means to catch a glimpse of nothingness. But then I realised I was merely deceiving myself and I don’t really know what is meant by all this.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>I understand it on an intellectual level - I think - and I grasp the concept that there is no single place in the brain that we can call ‘I’; that this thing we call conciousness exists everywhere and nowhere, that it is a collective of processes that come together and present us with this life we see. Our brains are fallable, play tricks on us, and become unreliable narrators at times. But I can’t see a way past that. Harris suggests that through meditation we can strip all this away, and perhaps ‘see’ that we don’t exist in the way we perceive ourselves to (whoever ‘we’ are). The more I think about it; the more of a conundrum it becomes. </p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Is there really a way that we can step away from ourselves and truly realise this feeling? It seems to me at the moment to be an academic discussion, or even a thought experiment of sorts, that isn’t truly revealing itself.</p>2015-01-16T23:14:43+00:00Regret. What is it good for?https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8915/viewthread/17923/
https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8915/viewthread/17923/#When:05:19:26Z<p>What usefulness does the emotion of regret serve?<br />
I was having a discussion with my mother and she was telling me about her regrets in life. So I started thinking.<br />
Firstly regret is only possible with the element of hindsight. Secondly an assumption is made that had we acted differently the outcome would have been BETTER. This assumption is flawed since the outcome or long term consequences of a different course of action would have been unpredictable, just as the outcome of the original action was unpredictable at the time. Add to this the absence of free will and the whole ‘regret’ business is an exercise in futility. Unless one enjoys regret. I think she does. Thoughts?</p>2015-01-11T05:19:26+00:00Harris vs. Very Bad Wizards (very bad indeed)https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8915/viewthread/17906/
https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8915/viewthread/17906/#When:04:37:58Z<p>I was quite excited to listen to the recent Very Bad Wizards philosophy podcast. For years now, I have been waiting for intelligent philosophers to legitimately challenge Harris’s viewpoints in real time. This is not because I disagree with Harris. In fact, I entirely agree with Harris’s positions on free will, responsibility, and so on. But rather, I desperately want to hear legitimate challenges to his position in order to have Harris further elaborate on his positions, provide additional counterexamples, defend against sensible attacks, etc.</p>
<p><br />
As such, I became increasingly disheartened as the VBW podcast progressed. The philosophers Tamler Sommers and David Pizarro were woefully inadequate intellectual opponents. They often could not even accurately describe Harris’s positions, let alone offer counterarguments (especially Tamler). And the conversation suffered as a result.</p>
<p><br />
Several aspects of Harris’s free will positions are rather unique: the rational erosion of hatred, the preservation of love, the illusory nature of the illusion of subjective free will, etc. And these are monumentally important logical consequences of Harris’s positions (assuming they are correct).</p>
<p><br />
And so, I ask: Are there any philosophers/intellectuals who agree with (or legitimately argue against) Harris’s philosophical positions, especially with respect to free will? I would hope they address some of the specifics I listed in the above paragraph.</p>
<p><br />
I am desperate to find further reading that is not an utter waste of time. While it is very entertaining to hear/read Harris’s debates against Cenk, Reza, Dennett, Pizarro, etc., they are effectively one-sided conversations where Harris is constantly cleaning up the other’s constant mistakes.</p>
<p><br />
If any of you share my interests, please feel free to respond and/or message me. I could use some stimulating (and hopefully useful) conversation about these most important of matters.</p>
<p><br />
Best,<br />
-E</p>
2014-12-19T04:37:58+00:00Would you consider “zoning out” a type of meditation?https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8915/viewthread/17799/
https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8915/viewthread/17799/#When:19:46:27Z<p>I personally am not able to “zone out” at will but I have experienced (most likely like everyone else) that every now and then my brain is empty of any thoughts and I have been looking at some distant objects without seeing anything. I would neither remember what I was thinking before that and what that thought might have been leading to. It feels like a pause/reset button that the brain engages automatically.</p>2014-10-14T19:46:27+00:00Crediting causalitieshttps://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8915/viewthread/17760/
https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8915/viewthread/17760/#When:19:54:56Z<p>Hi, my name is Rayhana. I’m a newbie on the forum (short bio: studying economics at some UK university, originally from Bangladesh.)</p>
<p>While I was born in a somewhat conservative Muslim family, I’ve been a bit of a curious folk who tripped into questioning religions and became agnostic when 13. But now I do not identify myself as agnostic or atheist because the terms draw subjective impressions than what I feel about existential musings. But that is a different discussion, I want to talk about this, and would appreciate to have any view: </p>
<p>I am very critical about much part of religions, especially Islam, whereby metaphorical/ historical accounts are mapped literally in real-life practices in a way that discriminates people based on gender, other religious views, color, income class etc, and the irrelevant extremist views that poses political and existential threat. </p>
<p>The only instances I have credited religions, including Islam, is when I viewed it as a platform or a medium that enabled people to pursue good works of architecture (beautifully designed mosques), literature (e.g, Sufi music, poetry), science (inventing algebra etc), art etc. But lately I have been rethinking this, and now I don’t think innovations in a certain era are a product of the religion/religious practices, but the culture that enables people to collaborate with others and explore their surroundings. </p>
<p>It is true there was an era in the Islamic period that flourished in trade, science, literature and art. But not because people practiced Islam, but because people practiced the methods in trade, science, literature, and art that produced new inventions. I have tried not to be a literalist here, but even definitionally religion is a practice of activities to socially endorse the faith in a supernatural deity, or God. So when I see the sarcastic hashtag #MuslimApologies trending that tries to credit the innovations from algebra to the first university built as a result of Islam as a religion, but not as a result of the activities and motivation that led to it, it just got me angry. </p>
<p>I don’t think the inventions from great architecture to genius algebra in the Islamic Era is caused by the practice of religion but by practice of precise methods applied by architects, and mathematicians. I think it is the Islamic culture back then when it was more secular and open that deserve the credit for these innovation than the standalone Islam as a religion that regimented during that era. </p>
<p>Please correct me if I got the causation wrong. I find it uncomplicated to find if someone has invented the number ‘‘zero’‘, it is not because they believed in God, it is because the instances before which the number zero was invented, the inventor was practicing math, rational thinking, solving a problem or two, and not reading any mantra asking for a miracle to have number zero invented.</p>
<p>Separating the effects of Islam as a religion, and Islam as a culture, is difficult, and yet leaving it aside is very unsettling.</p>2014-09-25T19:54:56+00:00Beyond Religionhttps://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8915/viewthread/17755/
https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8915/viewthread/17755/#When:03:28:17Z<p>I am a former Christian, Charismatic, Fundamentalist but now I’m an Imaginiinative caretaker of ALL LIFE , guided by the prime genetic directive and purpose as an Imaginative caretaker, as we are ALL great, mighty, and powerful spiritual beings with dignity, direction and purpose. IMAGINE THAT!&nbsp; iT’S ALL Imagination and vibration, karma runs over dogma. we reap what we sow, figments of our own Imagination, “as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he”. your comments please, Sam.<br />
REV JIM</p>2014-09-20T03:28:17+00:00Trickhttps://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8915/viewthread/17746/
https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8915/viewthread/17746/#When:18:24:37Z<p>Such deep esoteric notions have about as much effect as the discovery of the Higgs or dark matter on the course of world history.I have never believed we are in control of the planet from the evidence of present day chaos. Our intelligence and resulting techonolgy may well prove to hasten our downfall. I say downfall not eradication: it will mean making more room for our bosom brother the rat who has kept beside us through thick and thin.</p>2014-09-07T18:24:37+00:00Why Free Will Doesn’t Exist - InfoGraphichttps://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8915/viewthread/17743/
https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8915/viewthread/17743/#When:22:36:51Z<p>Here is an InfoGraphic I made of the very “basics” for understanding why free will doesn’t exist. Feel free to pass it along to those who are unfamiliar with the topic of free will in philosophy:</p>
<p><br />
<a href="https://www.samharris.org/?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fbreakingthefreewillillusion.com%2Ffree-will-doesnt-exist-infographic%2F">http://breakingthefreewillillusion.com/free-will-doesnt-exist-infographic/</a></p>
<p><br />
And no, this is hardly a sole argument against free will (that’s in my book) - but rather just a visual so people can quickly absorb what to research and try to understand for themselves. That free will is logically incoherent.</p>
2014-09-05T22:36:51+00:00Vegan/vegetarianismhttps://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8915/viewthread/17733/
https://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8915/viewthread/17733/#When:04:48:14Z<p>One of the many things I admire about Sam is his ability to ruthlessly slice through firmly-entrenched, dearly-held belief systems that are defended and reinforced by cultural norms that push in from every direction and infuse every aspect of our interactions with the world.</p>
<p>Sam has torn up religious-belief, free will, and the is-ought distinction.&nbsp; He also takes up controversial positions on drug-use, gun-control, and the Israel-Palestine conflict that alienates and offends the feeble minded on the left and right. </p>
<p>Having displayed that level of moral and intellectual courage, I can’t help but feel a little deflated by Sam’s approach to questions concerning vegetarianism and veganism.&nbsp; I don’t mind whether he wants to argue that it is a crock or it is morally obligatory.&nbsp; My concern is that he seems to avoid being as direct on the issue as he is on so many other issues.</p>
<p>His articulation of the moral framework and operating assumptions that guide the moral choices about whether to consume animal-based products sits neatly with the approach of a vegan/vegetarian consequentialist.&nbsp; </p>
<p>In fact, I don’t think I’ve heard anyone articulate the moral concerns that guide consequentialist vegans as well as Sam.&nbsp; And Sam, to his enormous credit, having laid out those assumptions, says that he cannot ethically defend eating meat, while also conceding that he nonetheless eats meat.</p>
<p>To that extent, his approach is similar to Dawkins, who when speaking to Singer, immediately perceives the immorality of meat consumption, and immediately confesses to moral weakness in that regard.</p>
<p>The acknowledgment of moral failing seems perfectly rational to me. And it need not, and should not, be accompanied by feelings of guilt and inadequacy.&nbsp; There are many behaviors that we engage in daily that, on reflection, are morally wrong.&nbsp; The person who has some specific aspect of their life operating in accordance with their moral precepts needs to be careful about generalising to across-the-board moral superiority over others.&nbsp; It doesn’t surprise me, therefore, that Sam and Dawkins are capable of acknowledging a disparity between objective morality and their daily behavior. </p>
<p>What I have noticed, however, is that Sam occasionally attempts to create a little fig leaf for his behavior. For example, he says that it is “hard to be fit, intelligent and active vegetarian”, or “at least it was for me”.&nbsp; He even seems to resort to the old canard about what he implies may be an inadequacy of “protein” in a non-meat diet.&nbsp; This smacks me as odd because, firstly, there should be no need for Sam to create such a fig leaf, and, secondly, because the fig leaf is manufactured on the back of pseudo-scientific assumptions that Sam knows he could never honestly articulate and defend. To that extent, he begins to sound a lot like a liberal religionist who will just acknowledge reality at every turn, and then conclude matters by making some woo-woo statement that is grammatically sound but which cannot withstand any sensible parsing. </p>
<p>Sam is well read enough to be familiar with the science on protein requirements, and astute enough to know that the science is consistent with the thousands upon thousands of vegan and vegetarian athletes who successfully place extraordinary demands on their bodies without consuming meat. He also knows that if his specific athletic or aesthetic desires call for a greater level of protein than is provided by a particular configuration of vegetarian or vegan diet, it is a simple matter to do what just about all people with high protein requirements do (regardless of their food choices), i.e., supplement.&nbsp; And he knows that his biology is not all that different to millions of other vegetarians, except of course to the extent that he has some specific food intolerance. “Protein-itis” exists only in bro-science best sellers, for the time being. </p>
<p>Is it time for Sam to be straight up, and make plain that he could feel fantastic on a vegan/vegetarian diet and achieve all of his protein/performance/aesthetic goals on a vegan/vegetarian diet, and that his particular diet simply represents an instance of his daily behavior not aligning with his objective morality; an instance where cultural myths and socially-reinforced norms continue to have a hold on his daily behavior?</p>
<p>Just “owning” that disparity has at least three virtues.&nbsp; First, it is honest.&nbsp; Second, it may encourage others to take up better behaviors. And three, acknowledging the possibility of disparity between objective morality and daily behavior - even among the finest of people—promotes empathy for the complexity of the human condition and a more effective search for the means of changing personal behaviors.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>2014-09-05T04:48:14+00:00